Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
of defense in the meeting of world leaders. chuck hagel was supposed to be there and we'll let you know how the congressional haggling is playing out on the world stage. you're watching msnbc, the place for politics. [ female announcer ] total effects user kim scott still looks amazing. but with kids growing up fast, fighting seven signs of aging gets harder. introducing total effects moisturizer plus serum. for the ninety-two practices, two proms, and one driving test yet to come. she'll need our most concentrated total effects ever. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narco
lindsay graham believes the senate should hold up the confirmation ofs of john brennan an chuck hagel until the white house releases more information on the deadly benghazi for attack. senator graham wants to know exactly what the president was doing that tragic night. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the c.i.a. director ship, hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense secretary of defense. did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone to help these folks? >> what does this mean? joining us, a former media spokesperson for president george w. bush and joe mansion a democrat. mercedes and chris, welcome. mercedes, let me start with you. what does this mean if the senator is saying we're going to hold up these critical nominations until we find out about the president's activity that night? >> we've been waiting for months from the white house to figure out what happened in ban gaza. when you look at what susan rice mentioned on benghazi with her talking points, that basically saying that this was due to a protest. we know that wasn't the case. we
, the president wants to replace secretary panetta -- the man he wants to replace panetta with, chuck hagel, is having his confirmation held up. now, can you explain inwhat this is about? what's happened? >> reporter: sure. well, the vote for chuck hagel to be confirmed has to come out of the senate armed services committee, and republicans there have asked mr. hagel for really some intense background questions as to whether or not he has been paid by any company that has dealings with foreign companies in the last five years. they want to have all the records about anything that he's been paid $5,000 or more through speeches or various things over the last few years. karl kevin thoucarl levin thoug the ranking member for 26 years, says this has been unprecedented by republicans. they're really going after all this information because they simply want to delay mr. hagel. he released a letter today that said mr. hagel's nomination will move forward next week. hopefully be voted out of committee. that's what democrats feel. and they held the numbers there, 14-12, so they believe it will go fo
of relief ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego. >>> new signs say that chuck hagel will be confirmed. he is what senator john mccain. >> i don't believe he is qualified. but i don't believe that we should hold up his nomination any further. >> i want to bring in former senator bob kerry, democrat from nebraska also former president of the new school. good to see you again. >> let's start in broad terms. what do you think of the republican treatment of chuck hagel? >> i think it is legitimate that they have questions about some foreign policy decisions he has made in the past. i think particularly senator cruz and others went too far in applying as a consquence that somehow he is dangerous to the united states. he won the election to decide who wants to be secretary of defense. >> what do you think was behind a lot of that? >> i think it had a lot to do with a sort of neoconservative movement who are very angry to senator hagel about the surge and critical comments he made and has to do with a number of conservative jewish americans who are concerned about his jews o
nomination than was chuck hagel the week before. he was far more confident, far more informed, authoritative. but this is the first time it was ever debated, the subject. i mean it's gone undebated. and i have to concede that much of the criticism, i think from conservative press is absolutely valid. if this were george w. bush and dick cheney and we had increased by sixfold the number of unmanned attacks on other countries that are not combatant countries, that were not at war with, there would have been far more hue and cry. and it is interesting that the president, the only criticism in the president seems to be among a few liberals, and the support seems to be from people like john bolton-- and so it's a debate i think we have to have, we should have and it's been cloaked in secrecy and secrecy is the sacrosanct secular religion of this city. >> woodruff: so this has stirred it up? >> i think so, because of the leaked memo and the system, we are having a debate about drones. and i guess if i want a drone policy i want it run by a franciscan, not a jesuit. but he didn't really defend it,
for why he wants the job. and that's one thing that we really didn't get a sense of from chuck hagel throughout the about three hours of testimony, he really made a passionate case for his love of serving the country, his expertise in this area, and the seriousness with which he would take some of the concerns these senators brought to him. promising more transparency, promising truthfulness when one democrat, in particular, said she has been, quote, jerked around by just about every cia director in her long tenure and time on that specific committee. so he was very persuasive there. when richard talks about the trouble he had with waterboarding, in part, he was really trying to avoid using the word "torture" because it does have a legal implication, and it has such a political implication. that that would have been such a huge headline if he had, in fact, called it torture. so he said pretty much everything around that. he does have the issue of having been part of a time when these things were used in saying, quite plainly, he didn't do anything to try to stop it. nears there's no
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)